Alan Shealy, the member of the Boise City Council who took the bulk of the credit for removing a Ten Commandments monument from Julia Davis Park in 2004, is now considering a run for the United States Senate in 2008.

Shealy told the Boise Weekly (BW) that he is thinking about higher office because the city council has a tough time getting anything done and its work is mostly drudgery, such as approving subdivision changes and the like. Such issues, says Shealy, “Are below our pay grade,” are “a waste of time,” and should be handled by a lower level of city government.

Now, according to BW, Shealy intends to apologize to the city council, saying “I didn’t mean to imply that the council was ineffective.”

The Idaho Statesman, which, according to editor Kevin Richert, “has chided him in the past for showing an arrogant streak,” says that Shealy “may be the first politician in American history to run for the U.S. Senate in hopes of digging out from under bureaucratic paperwork.”

Oddly, Shealy is a registered Republican and considering a run in the Republican primary. For Mr. Shealy to think that a man who is proud of removing the Ten Commandments from public property can get elected to a statewide seat in Idaho may be an indication that he does not understand how far out of step he is with grassroots Idahoans.

The last we knew of Mr. Shealy, he was still refusing to participate in the invocations that open Boise City Council meetings (at last view, he was standing ramrod straight and either staring at the back wall or the head of the individual giving the invocation) and refusing to say “under God” when the Council recites the Pledge of Allegiance.

Idaho, I’m quite certain, is not ready to elect a senator who is hostile to the public acknowledgement of God, is proud of removing the Ten Commandments from the public square, is opposed to “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, refuses to show respect for the time-honored practice of public invocations, and, contrary even to liberal icon Thomas Jefferson, does not believe our rights come to us from God.

For some reason it seems the GOP candidates for the 2008 presidential election are a little slower out of the gate than the Democrats. As a result, there is a large number of Republican candidates out there who seem serious about making a run.

Personally still in the “wait and see” mode, I still found the results informative, but look forward to more information about the candidates.

If you would like to participate in an early survey, see below. Follow the link to the results.

Boise State University has still failed to clarify the discrepancy between statements made by the school’s communications director, Frank Zang, and the director of the school’s Student Union Building (SUB), Leah Barrett, over the uses and purposes for a unisex bathroom slated for inclusion in the new SUB expansion.

Mr. Zang has categorically denied that BSU is planning a transgendered bathroom for the new facility, while Ms. Barrett openly declared as recently as last Monday that one of the uses for the new facility will be for BSU’s transgendered community, and in fact called it a “transgender” bathroom.

The new restroom is designed to accommodate a disabled individual in a wheelchair and an assistant, and is required by building code. The University has been insisting that that is its sole purpose. This is providing BSU with what politicians a generation ago called “plausible deniability.”

The restroom, of course, is required by law as an accommodation for the disabled, and we all can certainly be happy that they will have an accessible restroom facility. But this utterly fails to explain why the executive director of the SUB would refer to it as a “transgender” restroom.

Ms. Barrett has so far not responded either to an email or a voice mail from the IVA asking for clarification, and, according to a newly placed message on her answering machine yesterday, she will be “out of the office” until the middle of next week.

Mr. Zang, in an email to the IVA, insisted that he and Ms. Barrett “are in agreement on the intention of this restroom in the new building,” but offers no explanation for the contradictory statements the two of them have issued.

Although no explanation was offered for Ms. Barrett’s absence from her office at this time, and the explanation may certainly be benign, her absence is certainly convenient, making her unavailable for comment.

What we must not miss here is that the campaign for unisex bathrooms, also referred to as “gender neutral,” “gender safe,” or “gender non-specific” (GNS) bathrooms, is being waged primarily on college campuses all across America, and it is a central part of the homosexual agenda.

The Bi-sexual, Lesbian, Gay, and Transgendered Student Association at Harvard recently conducted the “Harvard University Bathroom Study” – yes, Virginia, there is such a thing – and made it clear that creating GNS bathrooms is a central part of its campaign for full normalization of all gender variations.

Say the authors of the study, “Besides reinforcing gender norms, bathrooms that are clearly marked as male/female force many individuals to enter bathroom environments that they consider uncomfortable and unsafe. People face discrimination daily for entering marked bathrooms containing other individuals who perceive their gender to be variant from the social norm. Increasing awareness and identifying the locations of gender-safe bathrooms will prevent people from being threatened by violence and harassment.”

What is entirely missing here is any mention of the obvious solution: helping these troubled individuals, through love, care, and therapeutic counseling, reach a place where they are able to reconcile themselves to their God-given sexual identity, and can freely and without embarrassment use the facility appropriate to the sex they were assigned at birth.

It is plain from the Harvard statement that the push for GNS bathrooms simply a way to force society to readjust what it considers “gender norms” and to promote society’s acceptance, endorsement, and approval for genders that are “variant from the social norm.” It is a deliberate effort to undermine the teaching of the Judeo-Christian tradition that there are just two genders, male and female, assigned by God at birth.

The Harvard Student Council voted last May to pressure the University for more GNS bathrooms (at that time, there were 38 GNS bathrooms on campus), and approved by a 32-3 vote a proposal that will allow “gender variant” students to use whatever restroom they deem appropriate to their perceived gender identity.

The same campaign is being waged at virtually every Ivy League university, the University of New Hampshire, the University of Massachusetts (by a transgendered group calling itself the “Restroom Revolution”), the University of Chicago (under the heading “Queer Action Campaign”), and a host of other schools, as a simple Google search readily confirms.

According to a 2002 Washington Times article, the United States Students Association (USSA) has been pushing the nation’s colleges and universities to provide single-stall “gender neutral” restrooms since at least 2002. An op-ed piece in the UCLA student newspaper heralded the USSA’s resolution as “the arrival of the transgender liberation movement.”

There is even a website – safe2pee.org – that intends to create a map of every GNS bathroom in the United States for the benefit of those with gender identity disorders.

The Transgender Law Center argues that every student has the “right to use a restroom that corresponds to the student’s gender identity, regardless of the student’s sex assigned at birth,” and says that the “student’s self-identification is the sole measure of the student’s gender.”

According the Gay Straight Alliance Network, the lack of safe bathrooms “is the biggest problem that gender non-conforming students face,” and is “the most frequent form of discrimination” they encounter. The suggested solution, naturally, is more GNS bathrooms.

With regard to the developing situation at BSU, if Ms. Barrett spoke in error, then an official retraction from her on BSU’s behalf would certainly be in order. We also should expect that the university administration ensures that no one representing the school and no one posting information on the BSU website (including student clubs) will describe the new restroom as a restroom for the transgendered, or intended in any way for use by the transgendered community.

As I wrote on Tuesday, according to the New York Times, the new “political frontier” in the culture war is “the campaign to establish gender-neutral bathrooms in public places.” The idea is to make sure that transsexuals, cross-dressers, and “those with a fluid, androgynous identity who do not consider themselves completely male or female” can use bathrooms “without fear or harassment.”

It will clearly be in the best interest of Idaho’s public policy for the university to make it abundantly clear that this new restroom will not be presented in any way as a step forward or as a victory in that campaign.

The eight candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination were on stage in South Carolina last night, a â€œconversationâ€ broadcast across the nation by MSNBC.

There were many interesting discussions of a wide range of issues, but the issue of greatest concern to us is the challenge of abortion. Each candidate affirmed his (or her) heartfelt fealty to the â€œsacredâ€ Roe v. Wade decision. Barak Obama and Chris Dodd had opportunity to bemoan the â€œawfulâ€ ruling by the Supreme Court in the most recent Partial Birth Abortion decision. Dodd argued that the Court turned its back on women and their health by declaring it is unlawful to kill a baby while it is being born.

Several of the candidates were asked whether they would use an abortion â€œlitmus testâ€ in appointing judges. All said without apology or hesitation that candidates for the court would have to pass muster on Roe v. Wade.

And then three of the candidates were asked which of the current justices were their preferred â€œrole modelâ€, the person who best represented their notion of an ideal justice. All three, including John Edwards, named Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. A shiver should have passed through the nation.

Justice Ginsburg is among the most radical ideologues to ever sit on the high court. Ginsburgâ€™s primary preparation for service on the high court was her tenure as a leading attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union. She is guided not by the Constitution, but by her political interpretation of what the Constitution should say, and would say â€“ IF the Founding Fathers had simply had her wisdom and insight into social and political challenges.

Here is a sample of Justice Ginsburgâ€™s values, as exemplified by her rabid dissent in the Partial Birth Abortion decision:

â€œ[Abortion rights are â€¦] central to a womanâ€™s autonomy to determine her
lifeâ€™s course, and thus to enjoy equal citizenship stature.â€

â€œ[The majorityâ€™s thinking] reflects ancient notions about womenâ€™s place in
the family and under the Constitution â€“ ideas that have long since been
discredited.â€

Oddly enough, later in the debate, John Edwards was asked who came to mind as a key moral guidepost in his life. He stared for quite some time before mentioning several. Among them was his father. Edwards said his father had taught him the value of every single human life, regardless of age, race, creed, sexual orientation, etc. But, of course, Edwards is oblivious to his own betrayal of that principle by promoting the likes of Justice Ginsburg and her agenda of death for America.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Four hundred years ago today, English settlers landed at Cape Henry in Virginia, the settlers who would ascend the James River and, on May 19, 1607, found Jamestown, the first permanent English settlement in America.

Their first act was to erect a wooden cross and hold a prayer meeting, which certainly represents a data point in the discussion of whether or not America was founded as a Christian nation.

The charter for the Virginia Colony (named for the “Virgin Queen” Elizabeth) – which Jamestown tour guides can now mention after the lifting of a gag order which prohibited them from discussing any of the religious motivations for the colony – says, in part:

“Greatly commending . their Desires for the Furtherance of so noble a Work, which may, by the Providence of Almighty God, hereafter tend to the Glory of His Divine Majesty, in propagating of Christian Religion to such People, as yet live in Darkness and miserable Ignorance of the true Knowledge and Worship of God.”

The second charter of Virginia, dated May 23, 1609, stated:

“The principal Effect which we can expect or desire of this Action is the Conversion and reduction of the people in those parts unto the true worship of God and the Christian Religion.”

It continued: “It shall be necessary for all such our loving Subjects . to live together, in the Fear and true Worship of Almighty God, Christian Peace, and civil Quietness, with each other.”

We will leave it to our friends at the ACLU to try to explain these things away, and will content ourselves for the time being with the knowledge that our conviction that America was founded as a Christian nation rests on the most secure basis possible, the plain statements of original sources.

The new settlement contained a mix of upper class “gentlemen” and working men from England, and problems arose when the fustier Englishmen refused to do manual labor, as something beneath them. Resentment naturally grew among the men who were left to do all the heavy lifting, and the colony was threatened with fracture.

John Smith stepped in and saved the colony, as virtually every history of Jamestown reports, by instituting a new rule for the colony: “He who does not work, will not eat.” Faced with this stark choice, the snobbish settlers quickly abandoned their indolence and became full contributing members of the fledgling colony.

What most history books omit (including the textbook my children used at an Idaho public high school) is that this dictum is essentially a direct quote from the New Testament (2 Thessalonians 3:10). Thus the gospel not only founded Jamestown, it saved Jamestown.

Smith’s example was one of the first occasions on which a principle drawn from the Judeo-Christian tradition was used to establish sound public policy in America’s civic life. Politics, as Henry Hyde famously said, is simply the extension of ethics, and Smith gave us an informative illustration of just how that process can and should work.

ISLAM’S THREAT TO THE WEST

Three extensive quotes provide further evidence of the threat that even mainstream Islam has posed in the past to Western civilization, and continues to pose today.

The first comes from an interview Thomas Jefferson and John Adams had with Tripoli’s ambassador to London in March, 1785. Thomas Jefferson was the first U.S. president to face Islamic jihad, in the form of the Barbary pirates. He sent the Marines in to deal with them, which explains the famous line in the Marine hymn, “From the halls of Montezuma, to the shores of Tripoli.”

When Jefferson and Adams asked by what right the Barbary states attacked American ships and reduced both crews and passengers to slavery, they were informed that “it was written in the Koran, that all Nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon whoever they could find and to make Slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.”

Fast forward to 2004, when Mohammed Bouyeri, a Muslim wearing traditional Islamic clothing, killed Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh on the streets of Amsterdam. He first shot van Gogh off his bike, then attempted to behead him with a knife, and eventually pinned a note to van Gogh’s body with the knife he had used to stab him to death. The note contained verses from the Koran and threats to other Dutch public figures who were opposing unrestricted Muslim immigration into the Netherlands.

At his trial, Bouyeri was quite clear about why he had murdered van Gogh, holding a Koran in his hands as he spoke. “I did what I did purely out of my beliefs. I want you to know that I acted out of conviction and not that I took his life because he was Dutch or because I was Moroccan and felt insulted . If I ever get free, I would do it again . What moved me to do what I did was purely my faith. I was motivated by the law that commands me to cut off the head of anyone who insults Allah and his prophet.”

Lastly, consider the words of the acting speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council just two weeks ago, in a sermon broadcast on Sudan television. (He belongs to Hamas.) “America and Israel will be annihilated, Allah willing. I guarantee you that the power of belief and faith is greater than the power of America and Israel. They are cowards, who are eager for life, while we are eager for death for the sake of Allah. That is why America’s nose was rubbed in the mud in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Somalia, and everywhere.”

He concluded with this prayer: “Oh Allah, vanquish the Jews and their supporters. Oh Allah, vanquish the Americans and their supporters. Oh Allah, count their numbers, and kill them all, down to the very last one . defeat the Jews and the Americans, and brings us victory over them.”

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

In Part I, the Idaho Judicial Council and the process for appointing or electing a justice to the Idaho Supreme Court was discussed. Read Part I here.

Two of the attorneys vying for the soon-to-be-vacant seat on the Idaho Supreme Court are Bart Davis, senate majority leader in the Idaho Senate, and Marvin Smith, in private practice in Idaho Falls.

Bart Davis has long voiced his opinion that Supreme Court justices should be appointed. But denying voters a voice in the selection isnâ€™t the only reason he would like to be considered for the position. He would love the prestige and responsibility without the effort of the campaign.

Davis claims he hates elections. He is, as he likes to remind everyone within earshot, just a little country lawyer. Every two years when he must campaign for his senate seat, he finds an opportunity (always in front of the news camera) to put his arm around his opponent (never a serious contender), and smile sadly to show how much it will pain him to win. An appointment to the Supreme Court would save him the rigors of a campaign, something for which he has no stomach.

And Marvin Smith has already had a shot a judgeship. He served as a district judge in Idaho Falls for a short period of time, but soon stepped down, saying it just wasnâ€™t for him. Should he be appointed, would Smith soon tire of the Supreme Court routine? It would seem risky at best to give him the opportunity to find out.

I am unfamiliar with the other candidates, but their eagerness to be appointed rather than elected to the position categorically disqualifies them, in my opinion.

In conclusion, the constitution of the State of Idaho actually specifies that Supreme Court justices will be elected, and makes no provision for their appointment. Once again the Idaho Judicial Council, and specifically Gerald Schroeder, have succeeded in circumventing the voters, under the pretext of “keeping politics out of the judiciary”.

The only consolation is that in 1-Â½ years, whoever is appointed will face the ballot box.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Congressman Bill Sali (ID-01) issued the following statement tonight in response to the House vote to declare defeat and micromanage the Iraq war:

“No one likes war. We all wish that victory in Iraq had been clear-cut and definitive and that, by now, a stable and free government in Baghdad was operating well.

“But we are at war, and we owe it to our soldiers and to our national security to win this war by supporting our generals in the field so we can bring our soldiers safely home.

“I am not a general. Speaker Pelosi is not a general. And Members of Congress have no business superimposing their opinions upon the judgments of our generals.

“With this vote, we’ve just let the world know that we’re ready to declare defeat. We’ve just let the world know that we’re abandoning our mission and abandoning the people of Iraq. In this dangerous and uncertain world, our enemies of all stripes will quickly view America as weak and lacking resolve. This is the most chilling message we could possibly send our allies, our enemies and our men and women in uniform.”

Robert Spencer, one of the world’s leading experts on Islamic jihad, delivered a well-attended lecture last night on the campus of Boise State on the subject of radical Islam.

He made the observation that the phrase “war on terror” is a misnomer, simply because “terror” is a tactic, not an enemy. The reality, he went on to say, is that we are at war with radical Islam.

Osama Bin Laden, for instance, the architect of 9/11, has consistently cited the Koran and the teachings of Muhammad to justify his attacks on the United States. The terrorist Zarqawi, who personally beheaded civilian contractor Nicholas Berg and then released the video of the deed to the internet, justified beheading on the grounds that this is the example Muhammad set for his followers when he beheaded his enemies in his own day.

In fact, Spencer, pointed out, Muhammad engaged in jihad 77 times during his first 10 years in Medina, and the Koran teaches that jihad – the use of force to advance the cause of Islam – is in fact the highest expression of human endeavor.

Jihad experienced a revival in the late 1960’s with the publication of a book entitled “Jihad: The Forgotten Obligation,” which urged modern day Muslims to imitate the example of the Prophet. The book reminded readers of a particular teaching of Muhammad, who, when asked what deed is greater than jihad, said, “I do not know of such a deed.”

A terrorist cell of Yemini Muslims in Lackawanna, New York was inspired to turn to jihad by this teaching of the Prophet, convinced that jihad was an act of such nobility that it would ensure their salvation by outweighing any and all bad deeds on the scale Allah uses to determine who is permitted to enter paradise.

Despite many who say that jihadists have “hijacked” a peaceful religion, jihadists themselves, with good reason, insist that in fact it is they who are practicing the true and pure form of Islam.

Spencer reminded the audience that in Islamic thought, the only three options that infidels – Jews and Christians – have are these: conversion, submission, or war. Either convert to Islam, show abject submission to Islam by paying the jizya, essentially a protection tax, or prepare for war.

Since the West is not prepared to convert, and unwilling to pay submission taxes to Islam, war on the West has complete moral justification in the minds of these Muslims.

According to Spencer, we must understand that most Muslims believe sincerely that the Koran reveals not just a religious system but a political system as well, and reveals the social order that Allah has ordained for all mankind. Evidence that the Koran is political as much as religious is that the Islamic calendar is dated from the moment when Muhammad became a political leader.

Since Islam contains the highest form of society ever revealed to man, Muslims have a duty before Allah to establish the hegemony of Islamic culture all over the world. It is incumbent upon them to impose this culture at the point of the sword, if necessary, in order to bring nations into the Islamic social order.

Spencer warned, well before the U.S. military invaded Iraq, that the quest to rebuild Iraqi society in a Western mold was doomed to fail, simply because Muslims sincerely believe that the social order prescribed in the Koran, by Allah, is superior to any other expression of society, including representative democracy. Because Muslims consider representative democracy inferior to the social order of the Koran, they cannot be compelled to embrace it.

The best we can do, Spencer suggested, is to use the military might of the U.S. to contain the energy and force of jihad, but he indicated that it is unlikely that we will see any genuine political reforms in Muslim countries as long as they remain Muslim.

Once again we see that the Judeo-Christian tradition, which gave birth to the republican form of government we enjoy in the West, with its blend of liberty and justice, is the last, best hope for mankind.

Spencer concluded by saying that all of us in the West must recognize the threat that Islam poses to us. Its threat is not reserved for either conservatives or liberals, but instead targets any and all who will not bow the knee to Allah.

Although it is fashionable to blame Israel for Islamic fanaticism, Spencer pointed out that the Muslim Brotherhood, the wellspring of much jihadi thought and action, was founded in 1928, 20 years before Israel even existed as a sovereign nation.

Further, poverty and oppression cannot explain jihadism – many jihadis are in fact not poor at all (bin Laden being a prime example) and typically are better educated than most Muslims. And for centuries, even when Islam had considerable autonomy and political power, and had no fear of political oppression, it still waged jihad against the nations of Europe.

George Otis wrote a book over 15 years ago, The Last of the Giants, which made the case that it would take more than economic or political conflict to drive the nations of the world to Armageddon. It will take, he said, a dark spiritual energy to drive us to the final cataclysm, and he suggested, correctly in my view, that Islam is the source of that energy.

Spencer suggested that part of the solution to the threat from radical Islam is for the West to become energy independent. This would argue, in my view, that increased domestic energy production is essential not only for our economic growth but in fact now has become a matter of national security.

Opening up new oil fields in Alaska, in the Gulf of Mexico, and off both the east and west coasts is essential in our battle with Islamic jihad. Petrodollars are funding an enemy who is determined to wipe us from the face of the earth, and we will only be safe when that revenue stream slows to a trickle.

As a footnote, and not that this will come as a surprise to anyone, a BSU student who wanted to inform fellow students of Spencer’s appearance on campus was denied the opportunity to send out a departmental email, even though students pushing events sponsored by Planned Parenthood and liberal feminist campus groups were able to do so quite freely.

Once again, a teeming horde of lawyers is vying to become Idahoâ€™s newest Supreme Court justice. Because Chief Justice Gerald Schroeder is stepping down mid-term on July 31st of this year, the appointment process is well under way. The Spokesman Review Eye on Boise blog reports a lengthy list of hopefuls.

When a Supreme Court justice steps down mid-term he or she is replaced by an appointee, who at the end of the term must face election. Because the appointment operation kicks in only when a mid-term retirement takes place, Justice Schroederâ€™s actions are seen as a comment on the entire process. He obviously agrees with the Idaho Judicial Council that Supreme Court justices should be appointed, but never elected.

The Idaho Judicial Council (which, incidentally, is chaired by Gerald Schroeder) has long held that election of justices introduces the element of politics into the mix, which they believe seriously compromises their impartiality. So they will offer a short list of 2-4 preferred candidates to the governor, assured that whichever candidate is chosen will have the power of name recognition and incumbency when the term expires.

And of whom is the Judicial Council comprised? Gerald Schroeder, as mentioned, and other elitist attorneys and political appointees such as Phil Reberger (former Governor Dirk Kempthorne’s chief of staff) and Helen McKinney (long-time activist in the Idaho Federation of Republican Women). Clearly, the decisions of the Judicial Council will be free of all political influence. NOT!

Members of the Council obviously believe their judgment and intellect is superior to that of uneducated, easily swayed voters â€“ average Idahoans who may come before the Idaho Supreme Court seeking justice. If you doubt my assertions, do a little research on the members of the Council for yourself.

Those who understand that checks and balances on each branch are vital to good government believe that Supreme Court justices should be chosen by citizens on election day. The Judicial Council and its sympathizers have found a way around that inconvenience. Fortunately, even the mid-term appointees must face voters when their term expires. Without regular confirmation at the ballot box, the Supreme Court is completely unaccountable to the citizens of the state.

Case in point: Justice Linda Copple Trout helped sway the Idaho Supreme Court to rule against the state and in favor of the federal government in a water rights case. Idahoans were outraged. When conservative attorney Star Kelso challenged her seat on the Court and used that vote against her, Copple Trout charged him with deceitful, dirty politics. (Liberals always cry foul when their record is brought up in campaigns.) Copple Trout prevailed in the election. However, when the water case was appealed she had a sudden change of heart, and swung the courtâ€™s decision in favor of the state. Amazing how that ballot box works.

Read Part II for comment on Idaho government and the candidates for the Supreme Court.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

The American Life League has been working for years to encourage Americaâ€™s teens to take an active part in the battle for innocent life, which often involves teens at risk.

National Pro-Life T-Shirt Day was yesterday, the 5th annual.

Rock for Life organizer Erik Whittington is quoted as saying, â€œNow more than ever, the young of this country need to hear a strong pro-Life message.â€

Nampa students were among those participating. 125 Jr. and Sr. high kids belonging to St. Paulâ€™s Catholic Church wore t-shirts to various schools around the Treasure Valley. They carried the Gospel to Nampa High, Skyview, Columbia, Melba, Bishop Kelly and Capital high schools.

According to Pete Espil, Youth Minister at St. Paulâ€™s, all the staff at St. Paulâ€™s wore t-shirts as well. He encourages the youth group to take part in this national event each year.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.